Commentary | Be Pragmatic Even When Pursuing the Dream Lover of the Jury System

Photo / 2014 Civil-version Simulated Jury Trial

Judge Lin believes that the dream lover of the jury system exists only in Hollywood, and cited realistic American cases in rebuttal. However, describing the jury system as a dream lover is a metaphor, not an oracle. After all, as adults, we all know that even when paired with our dream lovers, there is still plenty of pragmatic friction to be worked through, and princes and princesses do not live happily ever after simply as a matter of course. Regardless of whether we wish to study the American jury system or introduce the Japanese lay judge system, both require a considerable period of friction and adjustment with our domestic judiciary before it becomes possible to "live happily together."

The author's argument at the additional meeting of Group 4 has only one core point: I am neither endorsing the jury system nor promoting the lay judge system. Because Taiwan lacks empirical experience in implementing either a jury or a lay judge system, the humble expectation is simply to pilot both. Final policy decisions should be made only after such trials. If resources in manpower or funding are insufficient to pilot more than one, the jury system is recommended. This is because the jury system differs the most from and has the strongest complementarity with Taiwan's current situation, and it might (within the scope of the pilot) maximally adjust and impact our current judiciary.

Of course, these are merely "opinions," and anyone can question whether I am just "all talk." However, the exact same criticisms apply equally to the critics themselves, precisely because we possess no domestic experience whatsoever. The Judicial Yuan's previous policy was the "Advisory Jury System" (觀審制), and the simulated trials were premised upon that. Perhaps that cannot be said for certain, and perhaps the very same statistics or reports could equally support either the lay judge system or the jury system. The JRF has also conducted six jury trials; despite civil society groups having limited manpower and resources, we ourselves still feel that our work remains rather crude.

All of these criticisms may be valid. Perhaps the Taiwanese people truly lack sufficient rule-of-law literacy, treat deliberations lightly and carelessly, and judge people's lives based merely on intuition. If so, during the pilot phase, we should consider ways to measure or observe the deliberation process to serve as a reference for whether to persist with or abandon the jury system. Furthermore, to avoid disproportionately infringing upon people's rights, we could consider not starting with serious felonies. Perhaps Taiwan is truly too small, and the media far too developed, making it impossible to maintain a fair trial environment. If so, after the pilot, we should consider whether to restrict media reporting methods or abandon the jury system altogether. Alternatively, perhaps the changes brought by the jury system are simply too vast; while we can control material costs by limiting case volume, cultivating talent cannot be accomplished overnight. If so, after the pilot, we should consider whether to vigorously cultivate talent or simply abandon the system and maintain the status quo.

This checklist of questions could go on indefinitely. In truth, regarding the ABCs of comparing the pros and cons of various national systems, all parties have been discussing this for five years. What truly deserves our attention is when and how to take the next step. Reaching your dream lover may turn out to be a dream come true, or it may be an endless nightmare. Yet, if Hollywood truly has anything worthy of admiration, it is perhaps that it continually encourages people to bravely pursue their dreams — especially dreams that are mocked by the crowd.